Holding

A dagger found sheathed and without bloodstains cannot be the weapon that caused the fatal injuries, and the contradictory forensic evidence defeats the prosecution's case, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.

Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a dagger. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony that the appellant drew a dagger and inflicted fatal injuries, while the defence argued that the dagger was found enclosed in a sheath and bore no bloodstains, making it unlikely to have been the weapon used. Additionally, the appellant's dhoti and a bottle of arrack were discovered on a pathway away from the shed where the incident was said to have occurred, suggesting the assault could not have taken place as described. The Supreme Court held that a weapon used to cause such injuries would not be found sheathed and would exhibit bloodstains, and the presence of the appellant's belongings on the pathway contradicted the prosecution's version. Consequently, the Court found no case against the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his release.

Issues considered

Whether a dagger found enclosed in a sheath and without bloodstains can be the weapon used to inflict fatal injuries under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the location of the appellant's dhoti and bottle on a pathway undermines the prosecution's claim that the murder occurred in the shed.
Whether the evidence on record sustains a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCweapon evidencesheathforensic evidenceconviction overturnedappeal

Judgment

A KALLIKATT Kl~HU
v.
STATE OF KERALA

FEBRUARY 24, 20CD

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SYED SHAH vlOHAvlMED
OLADRI. JJ.I

Criminal Law :

C Penal Code, Ul60 : Section !02.

EvidellC<'" AppreLiation of Murde1~ {'umm1.11io11 of-Bv .>tabbing
with a dagger-Dagger enclo.1ed i11 a >heath "'ith 110 bloodstain.> 011 ii-Die
place of incident was afro not probabh· H dd : If the dagger was used tu
D inflict the injuries it «huuld have been jiiimd u11.1hwthed and ought to have
had some bloodstai11.1~Hence, these nvo important factors demufi.,he.1 the
prosecution case-<..'onviction of accw·ed under S.3112 w:t aside.

The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court for an offence
under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo im·
E prisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Hence this appeal.

According to the prosecution, the appellant went to the house of one A
and called him out. A came out of the hou'e and set on a bench in the chappa
(shed) and the appellant stood near him. A demanded repayment of money
F owed by the appellant. Annoyed by that demand the appellant tool• out a
dagger and stabbed A who toppled down along with the bl!nch. The appellant
was in a state of drunkenness and was picked up by hb wife leaving the dhoti
---
and bottle belonging to the appellant 011 the pathway.

G On behalf of the accused person it was contended that the dai.,'ger with
which the accused stabbed the deceased was found enclosed in a sheath and,
therefore, such a dai!:ger could not have been used by the accused to inflict
the injuries on the deceased; that since the dhoti and bottle belonging to the
accused were found on the pathway the incident could not have taken place
in the shed and that these two circumstances were enough to demolish the
H prosecution case.
1102
KA.L:JKO..'IT KC"-HC v. SlATE RAJE'.\'DR.\ BABL. J.j 1163

Allowing the appeal, this Court A
HELD: 1.1. lfthe dagger was used to inflict injuries upon the deceased
the same could not have been found enclosed in a sheath near the basement
of the clwppa (shed). It should have been found unsheathed and ought tu
have had some bloodstains. [1167-E]
B
2. If the appellant wa~ in a state of drunkenness and found tu have
been picked up by hh wife leaving his dhuti and bottle 011 the pathway where
it was fond, it is more probable that the incident could not have taken place,
as alleged, in the shed. If, as alleged, the incident had taken place in the shed
it is not probable that the dhuti and bottle could have been found in the
pathway. Thus these two important factors have been lost sight ufby both the C
courts below. (1167-G-H; 1168-A]

CRIMJ~AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
607 of 1994.

From th<.: Judgment and Order dated n9.92 of the Kerala High D
Court in Crl.A. ;-.Ju. 3l9 of 1989.

S.L. Am:ja, (AC), Sunil Kr. Jain fpr the Appellant.

G. Praka'h and \fokcsh ( iiri for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was ddivered by

RA.JENDRA BABt:, J. The appellant bdun: us having be~.n cun-
vict1.:d und1.:r Section 302 !PC and senten1.:<.:d to undergo imprisonment for
life, "Jn,uccessfully appealed to the High Court. Hence this appeai.
F
Tht: prosecution alleged that on 25.9.83 at about 2.30 p.m. the
appdlant went to tht: h.uuse of Abdulla and called him out when tht: sai.d
Abdulla was 'lated to be sleeping insidt: th<: house. At that time, Hameed,
PW1, son, \.!anha, PW2, first wife of Abdulla and Bet:vi, daughter of
AbduUa wen: sitting inside the kitchen. Abdulla came out of the house and G
both, the: appellant and Abdulla went tu the shed situate in the courtyard
of the house:. Abdulla _,at on a bt.:nch and the appellant stood near him. In
the course ol their conversation, Abdulla appear-s to have demanded
repayment of the money owed by the appdlant. Annoyt.:d by that d1;mand,
tht: appellant is 1tated to have taken out a dagger proclaiming that it had
hcen given to him by Pariyaram Abbas to kill him, stabbed Abdulla H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !2000J 1 S.C.R.

A inflicting injury on his chest. Abdulla was topplt:d down along with the
bench. Harneed, PWl, Manha, PW2 and Beevi rushed to the scene. Achibi,
PW3, the second wife of Abdulla, who had come to draw water from the
well near the house, also rushed to the scene. Again the appellant is stated
to have stabbed Abdulla and inflicted another injury on his left shouldcr.
The appellant then turned against PWl and othcrs who had reached near
B him. PWl caught hold of tht: appdlant from bchind and PW2 took out a
wooden stick and bt:al the appellant. PW3 took out a choppt:r and inflicted
some injuries on the appdlant. On account of the commotion, some of the
neighbours are said to haw reached the scene of occurrence. Wife of tht:
appellant also came to the scene and took him away from the scene of
occurrence. PW4 and Kariappu were abo thcre in thc courtyard at the time
c of the incident. PWl wcnt to thc policc station and lodged a FIR. On
registering a case, PW17, the Circ!t: Inspector of Police investigated and
laid a charge-shcet before the Juri;dictional Magistrate, who committed
the matter to the Sessions Cl'urt at Tdlicherry. The !tamed Sessions Judge
framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the
D appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thi;reafter the matter
stood transferred to Kasaragod Sessions Division un formation of a court
there. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and st:vcral Exhibits and material objccts
were marked. Statement of the appellant was n:curded under Section 313
Cr.PC. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

E On behalf of the appellant, the defence st:t up is that the incidcnt
did not take place as alkged by the prosecution. On the other hand, when
the appellant was returning home from ( 'hurch along tht: pathway in front
of Abdulla's house in the afternoon of 2~.9.83, Abdulla, Hameed, PWl.
Manha, PW2 and Kariappu attacked him and inflicted injuries upon him
F and the appellant secured possession of a knife which Kariappu was having
and when he fell unconscious he was taken to tht: house by his wife and
from there he wa~ taken to the hospital. Abdulla asked him and his wife
to give evidence in a case against one Sumappa Gowda and they did not
agree for the same and as a result of the enmity Abdulla and others
attacked him. By an order made on 27. !0.88, the Sessions Court acquitted
G the appdlant. However, th<: High Court in stto motu revision set aside the
order of acquittal and remanded the case for procct:ding afresh in accord-
ance with law.

After remand the trial court proceeded to formulate the following
H two questions:
KALLJKATI KL"<Ht.: v. STATE ;RAJE"'DRA BABt.:, J.j 1165

1. Whether the appellant committed murder of Abdulla and is he A
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

2. And if so, what should be the sentence?

The trial court is of the view that PWs 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses
to the incident who have given sufficient details as to how the ijicident took B
place and the appellant inflicted fatal mjuries on Abdulla and caused his
death. In the evidence tendt.:red by them it emerged that the appellant
owed some amount to the deceased and the matter was settled at the
intervention of PW10, V.K. Gopal, whi~h amount was to be paid by 28.9.83.
PW 1, son of the deceased, PW2, first wife of the deceased, PW3, second
wife of the deceased, and PW4, labourer working with the deceased, were
c
characteriscd as inten:sted witncsses. Even after careful scrutiny, the vt.:r-
sion of the incident as stated by PWs I to 4 could be accepted as there is
no basic infirmity in the same and tht:y arc natural witnesses. The defence
pointed out that thae were certain injuries on the appellant also which
were not properly explained. The trial court noticed that the evidence of D
PWs 1 tu 3 who have stated that a wooden stick and a knife were used by
them tu contain the attack on the deceased by the appellant. Though they
did not say in so many words that they caused injuries tu the appellant, the
trial court held that it was clear from their testimony that the injuries were
caused to the appellant by them. M.0.8 is the weapon, which is stated to E
have been used by PW·3 for inflicting injuries on the appellant. At the time
of inqm:st, '.Vl.0.8 was nut seized and it was produced before the Circle
In,p1xtur of Pulice by PW3 un 27.8.83, which was the third day after the
incident as pt.:r the version of PW3. There were no bloodstains on the said
weapon.
F
The defcnci: claimed that M.0.1 was the weapon used for stabbing
tht: deceased by the appellant and the said weapon was found sheathed
and as such the said dagger could nut have been used to inflict injuries on
the dect.:ased and so the evidence tendt:red by the eye witnesses is artificial.
This aspect of the case is dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in the G
following terms:

"It is possible that there may have been other knives lying around
the scene of occurrence. It is a matter of common knowledge that
in the area in question per;ons belonging tu the community of the
deceased usually carry knives in sheaths on their waist belts. lt is H
+

1166 SUPREME nll RT ;-ff.PORTS [2000j l S.C.R.

A possiblt: that the knife found sheathed belonged to the deceased.
It is also equally possible as i' somi::timcs the case that some
persons may carry more than a knift: with them. So just because
that the M.0.1 was found unshcathi.:d, that by itself is no ground
to discredit the entirt: prosecution case.'

B Hence tht: lcarm:d Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence
and rejected the case of the appdlant.

The appdlant had abo plt:adcd sdf-dt:fence. The trial court rejected
this aspect of thi' case by stating that it is not ri.:;asonable to assume that a

c 65 year old man would haw attackt:d the appellant and caused injuries to
him. The occum:nce of incidt:nt is stated to have taken piace in the
residenct: of the deceased. The appellant was apparently in a drunken state
and PW12 is a doctor who examined the appellant found him under the
influence of alcoilol and his wifo appear' tu haw takt:n him to their house
having found him wht:n he had fallen on tht: ground a' a n:sult of druni(:t:n-
D ness.

The trial court also noticed that there wer..: also s1;;v-.:ral discn:pancii:s
in the mattt:r and di,cardt.d tht:m as bt:ing only of minor nature.

On appeal by the appellant, the High Court affirmed the view taken
E
by the trial i.:ourt rm all aspects. On the 4uestinn of the injurie' having h;,;cn
caused by M.O. ', a sheathed dagger, the High Court ohsLrved as follows:

"PWs I tu 4 during examination in court uniformly identif:.t:d \-LO.I
as the wt:apon used by the appellant for stahbing the decea,cd.
F That bemg ~;o, the fact that \,1,( I. l was found enclosed in a 'hl:ath
would mit b.: ,ufhcient to arriv.. al a condu,ion that it was not the
weapon used by the appdl<int for causing tht: dt:ath of the
dect:a;c. d.''

The High Court took into cun,idcration the in4u<:sl report had
G disdosed that tht: bloodstained pla>tii: shoes worn by the d.:c.:as..:d wt:re
found near the dt:ad body; that the b..:nch whne the dcct:aM:d sat had
toppled down on th1: ground of chappu (shed) : tho.t a dagger (MO l) wa'
found in a shea[h near the basement of the chappa and that bloodstained
soil (MO 11) was tound in the clwppa. However. M04 mundu (dhoti),
H M05 bottlt: containing arrack w..:n: found on the suut:lt:rn ,ide of the
KAUJKATIK.l'IJHCv. STAH' IRAJlc'.'llJRA HABL.J.j ll67

pathway starting eastwards from the house of the deceased which was A
approximatdy two and a half metn:s away from the chappa. M04 and
/ M05 are stat<:d to bdong to the appdlant The High Court opined that
the appdlant was under the influence of alcohol and while rushing towards
his houst: could have lost his 111u11du and the bottle on the way and the
incidt:nt could have taken place only at the n:sidence of thi; deceased. The
High Court agreeing with the trial court's vit:w dismissed the appeal.
B

The learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact of
deceased having met with homicidal death considt:ring the nature of in-
juries on him as d1sclost:d in tht: post-mortem report. He, however, put
forth two aspects of the case in tht: forefront: (i) inquest report clearly C
indicated that the dag.gt:r (MOl) was found in a sht:ath and (ii) it is also
in evidence that ~104 (dhoti) and M05 (bottle) were found on the
southt:rn side of the pathway starting eastwards of the house of the
deceased, and submitted that th.est: two circumstances arc enough to
demolish the prnsi:rntion case. The karm:d counsel for the State n::lit:d on D
the reasoning of the trial court and the High Court as set out in their
judgmcnb.

If, as statt:d hy the .:ye witm:sscs, PWs I to 4, that MOl (dagger) was
usi:d to lntli.ct injur'.cs upon the d..:c.:ascd the same could not have been
found cndos.:d in a sheath near the has~ment of the chappa. It should have E
b.:.:n found unskathed and ought to haw had sumt: bloodstains. This
factor strongly pwhahliscs the version put forth hy the appellant that the
incident has nut takw place in the manner narrat.:d by the prosecution
witnesses. If \'1()1 (dagger) is not ust:d to inf:ict the injuries upon the
deceast:d thcr.: is no other w..:apnn of •Jffoncc produced before the trial F
wurt. It is also in cvid1.0ncc that the ;,aid MO I. did not belong to the
appdhmt but on th.: other hand hdonged to Pariyaram Abbas who had
also been examint:d. r urther it is nut pruhable that when the appellant was
trying to r:.m away towards his house he dropped his mundu and liquor
butt:..: which art: found on the southern side of the pathway starting
eastwards of the house of th..: deceased. If the appdlant was in a state of G
druni{e'lnt:ss and found to have been picked up by his wife leaving the dhoti
and bottle on tht: pathway where it was found, it is more probabk that thi;
inciden1 could not have takt:n place, as alleged, in the shed. lf as alleged
the incident had taken place !n tb.e shed it is not prubable that these two
MOs could have been found in the pathway. Thus these two important H
1168 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2GOOJ l S.C.R.
A factors have been lost sight of by both the courts below. The version given r-
by the eye witnesses get tilted by the weapon of offence not having been
found but what was produced being sheathed could not have been used for
inflicting injuries. Viewed from that angle, we have no hesitation to accept
the version put forth by the defence and set aside the order made by the
B High Court affirming the judgment of the trial court sentencing the appel-
lant to imprisonment for life.

In the result, we are satisfied that there is no case made out against
the appellant. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant
and set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case. The
C appeal is allowed accordingly.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.